80 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [yuty 
in 1835, but his numerous genera, for some reason, were not largely accepted. 
Raimann adopted Spach’s idea, but seems to have presented his conclusions 
ina more satisfactory way. Dr. Small presents fifteen genera as represented in 
North America under the single generic name G@:nothera, the old name retain- 
ing but five species, such as ©. humtifusa, G2. laciniata, @&. rhombipetala, 
etc. Those having somewhat acquainted themselves with the genus will be 
lost for a time in the maze of revived generic names. A new genus, Gaurella, 
is described, founded upon @, canescens Torr. & Frem., a number of new 
species are described, and abundant opportunity is given for new combina 
tions. It is to be hoped that such extensive fragmentation may not be found 
necessary in many of our large genera, or there will be a call for an inter- 
national congress to define a genus. 
WE HAVE RECEIVED a bulletin from the Alabama Experiment Station 
which should occasion some remark, It is Bulletin 70, and is entitled “The 
Flora of Alabama, Part V,”’ by P. H. Mell, botanist to the station. The four 
preceding parts have never come to our notice, but the present one deals 
with the Leguminose and Rosacee. We suspect, however, that this is the first 
part to appear, as certain prefatory matters would indicate. The author 
seems to be aware that botanists have been doing something in the last “ten 
or twelve”’ years, for he says so; but just what, he is evidently uncertain 
about, as the list testifies. We would suggest that if an “up-to-date” flavor 
be desired for the catalogue, the conspectus of orders had better be chang 
in several particulars, at least by removing the gymnosperms from their 
unnatural position between dicotyledons and monocotyledons; some dubious 
species had better be investigated, and all of them should be substantiated 
by herbarium specimens; and more than all, Dr. Chas. Mohr’s relation to this 
work should be clearly stated. Botanists outside of Alabama have know? 
for years that Dr. Mohr has been working upon a flora of his state, and we 
have expected a model state flora, because Dr. Mohr’s zeal and patient 
accuracy are well known. In the list before us certainly one-half of the 
Leguminos@ and one-third of the Rosacee are credited to Dr. Mohr alone; 
and we cannot believe that this extensive information was obtained from out 
good friend with the expressed intention of anticipating his own flora. In 
other words, Dr. Mohr must have granted a favor that has been abused. 
